Micmacs - 2009

Movie #178

3.5 stars

Bazil has a bullet in his head.  The arms company that made the bullet is across the street from the arm manufacturer that made the landmine that accidently killed his father.  Having nowhere else to go, Bazil is adopted into a "family" that lives in a junkyard.  With the help of his new family and their nifty gadgets and unique skills, Bazil seeks revenge on the two weapon dealers.

Cast: Dany Boon, André Dussollier, Nicolas Marié, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Yolande Moreau, Julie Ferrier, Omar Sy, Dominique Pinon, Michel Crémadès

Writer/Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet [Amelie]

The characters are very unique.  There is a catortionist, a girl who is literally a human calculator, a daredevil, and ohers.  Their antics kept the movie interesting.  Overall, the characters lack depth and are almost there for show, not for their own personal story.  The character's made the movie entertaining but Jeunet only skimmed the water.

There were parts of the movie that were...boring.  I was asking myself, when is this movie going to end.  It starts off good and then trails off into a narrative that lacked focus.  However, the ending was very entertaining, with all of the cool tricks, so it made up for the middle.

The addition of the Max Steiner music did make the movie more entertaining but at the same time, it is just hiding the lack of story development.  As a whole...if you take away all of the gadgets then you are left with a shallow story that couldn't hold anyones attention.  If you watch MICMACS and you are expecting another AMELIE then prepare yourself for dissapointment.

Overall Recommendation:  I suppose it's worth seeing if you are a Jeunet fan but don't go out of your way to see it.

Budget: $42 million
Gross (so far): $14 million    bust?

Jar City - 2006

Movie #175

4 stars

After a man is found murdered, an old case is reopened by the lead detective (Sigurðsson).  It appears that the crime is linked to a little girls death many years ago.  In this Icelandic thriller, a small town can be more connected then it seems.

 Cast: Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson, Ólafía Hrönn Jónsdóttir, Atli Rafn Sigurðsson, Erlendur Eiríksson, Elma Lísa Gunnarsdóttir, Rafnhildur Rósa Atladótir, Úlfur Ísfeld Rögnvaldsson, Sólon Ísfeld Rögnvaldsson, Þorsteinn Gunnarsson

Writer/Director: Baltasar Kormákur

Novel: Arnaldur Indriðason

What makes for a good crime thriller?  Well obviously there needs to be a crime...a suspected wrongdoer, a mysterious family past, exhumed bodies, and plenty of twists and turns make it a great thriller.  But what makes JAR CITY a cut above the rest is that it is about the people just as much as it is about the crime...maybe even a little more.

I have learned this about Iceland after watching the film, it is always cold and windy, eating sheeps head with an army knife is a regular dining experience, and people's organ are kept in jars...hence JAR CITY.  The film gives an interesting look at a small city.  People are not trusted, fear is always a motivator, and it is possible for a group of people to be too close.

I don't want to give too much away about the plot but know this, you may be a little confused at times but you will definitely be entertained.  JAR CITY is an excellent thriller.

Overall Recommendation: If you are into this genre then definitely check it out.  If not, you should still give it a try.

This film definately makes me want to see Kormakur's first film: 101 Reykjavík

Remake: Overture Films have brought the rights to remake JAR CITY.  Kormákur will produce the film, which will be based in a small Louisiana town.  Tod Williams (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2) will direct and Michael Ross (TURISTAS) wrote the screenplay.  I greatly greatly dislike remakes....but I guess I have a little hope for the American version.

My Best Friend - 2007

Movie #174

3.5 stars

Antiques dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) has failed to make a single friend, he just hasn't realized it yet.  His business partner (Julie Gayet) gives him 10 days to prove that he has a best friend.  If he doesn't succeed then his Greek vase must be turned over.  When he hires a taxi driver (Dany Boon) to teach him how to make friends, he is even more oblivious to what is right under his nose.

Cast: Daniel Auteuil, Julie Gayet, Dany Boon, Henri Garcin, Jacques Spiesser, Marie Pillet, Marie Mergey, Elisabeth Bourgine

Writer/Director: Patrice Leconte

What makes this movie enjoyable is the acting.  We all know how this movie is going to end...just like every other comedy.  Dany Boon and Daniel Auteuil did a superb job.

The movie has a rather shallow plot but what it is about is a whole bigger subject.  It seems like life nowadays is all about contacts..who do you know, who are you "friends" with on facebook, who got you your job.  In a world like this, it is easy to have no friends...all you have are acquaintances. 

So basically this film takes a rather depressing subject and makes it into an enjoyable comedy.  But there are definitely some good parts and a twist!

Overall Recommendation:  If you are looking for something a little lighthearted (that isn't really that lighthearted beneath the surface) then watch this one. 

Gross: $14.7 million

I Am Dina - 2002

Movie #170

3 stars


Dina's father accuses her of killing her mother but in reality it was just a childhood accident.  Dina's childhood is filled with loneliness and rage but when a tutor is hired, her love of music emerges.  When the tutor is forced to leave, Dina marries Jacob and the rest of her life is still haunted by death.

Cast: Maria Bonnevie, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Eccleston, Mads Mikkelsen, Pernilla August, Bjørn Floberg, Hans Matheson, Amanda Jean Kvakland, Jorgen Langhelle, Anette Hoff

Director/Writer: Ole Bornedal

NR (but I would say it's a R), 125 minutes

Filming Location: Nordland, Norway

Tagline: This is my story

Normally I go through all of my likes and then my dislikes...but this time I am just going to start with the most noticeable and go on from there...

Dislike: The first major drawback of this film is that it's in English.  The film is already filled with overacting...but would it have been so noticeable if the viewer was forced to read subtitles?  Dina's voice was so strange...there are some cheesy lines and when they are combined with her strange accent it almost makes you want to laugh.  I'm sure that's not what they were going for.

Like: The film was visually compelling.  The beginning of the film is overrun with the color white...the color of purity.  But in no way is Dina's life pure.  Was this a coincidence?  I don't think so...Bornedal probably wanted the viewer to think that Dina was innocent but as time goes by nothing can trick the audience into thinking that she is innocent.  As far as the scenery goes, looking at the film as a foreigner who has never been to Norway but wants to, the shots are very pretty.  In fact, it might be one of the reasons why I kept watching it.

Dislike: The pace was very strange.  At times it was very hard to understand how much time had gone by.  Which in the end, doesn't really matter I guess but it was a little frustrating while I was watching it. 

Dislike:  My emotional connection with Dina (pretty much feeling sorry for her) disappeared when her adulthood emerged.  It wasn't caused by a lack of resemblence between the two actors playing Dina it was more like the ridiculousness of her character was impossible to ignore.

Like:  The story was interesting and the characters were interesting.  Yes, there was some overacting but it did hold my attention.  Mads Mikkelson, the son of Dina's husband, did a fabulous job...as always.  He was the reason I watched it.  I don't think I would have watched it otherwise.

Overall Recommendation:  You can skip this one...but if you like Mads Mikkelson then it's worth it.

How could this film have been better?: Subtitles...subtitles...subtitles.  Not only would it have hidden the ridiculous accent but it would have forced the audience to read...hiding the overacting.  The kind of audience (US audience) that this film would most likely attract is the kind of audience that doesn't mind reading subtitles.

Analysis (Spoilers):
Dina's life changes when the tutor, played by Depardieu, comes into her life.  Instead of being obsessed with her mother's death, she becomes obsessed with music...and her mothers death.  In an attempt to force Dina to move on, he takes her to her grave and explains that she is in heaven.  In her eyes, Depardieu has told her that when Dina accidentally caused her death she was setting her free...along with all of her pain.  In a way this shifts Dina's obsession with the death of her mother to death in the large scheme of things.

After getting married, Dina and her husband witness a hanging.  As the man in about to die Dina says "Look at me. Look at me. Let all the cares and sorrows of this world fall away from you."  She thinks that death is the answer.  Death can make all of your pain go away.

So what does she do when her husband has an infected leg and she is taking him to a doctor in the cold winter weather...she pushes him off the cliff...because she is setting him free.  Dina thinks she can help everyone but she really just needs to help herself.  She is psychotic.  If this film didn't take place in the mid 1800's then she was surely be locked up in the loony bin.

Dina is haunted by her mother and her husband.  No matter what, it seems like Dina is forced to remember what she did.  If she was really helping them, would they have haunted her.  This especially true of her husband.

This film is an interesting look at death and the many views that people have of death.  In Dina's eyes no one should be afraid of death.  This is a tough subject to conquer...I know that I am very scared of death and I always have been.  But can this film change your life?  nah...but it's a little thought provoking I guess.

Trivia: Courtesy of iMDB

• With a budget totaling 144 million Norwegian kroner (about US$21 million) this was the most expensive movie to date in Norway. 
• Co-star Gérard Depardieu brought 500 bottles of wine from his own farm and winery to the location in Kjerringøy (northern Norway) "to keep the spirits up", as he himself put it.

Red Road - 2006

Movie #169

4 stars

Jackie's job as a security surveillance monitor in Glasgow allows her to journey into the lives of others...as well as her own.  Zooming from one camera to another, she sees someone from her past.  Jackie tries to understand the past but her future is just as perplexing.

Cast: Kate Dickie, Tony Curran, Martin Compston, Nathalie Press, Paul Higgins, Andrew Armour

Director: Andrea Arnold



This is the first film in the Advance Party series, a concept by Lars Von Trier (Antichrist), Lone Scherfig and Anders Thomas Jensen.  I am already excited.  I love Jensen...writer of Adam's Apples and After the Wedding.  The three films in this series have certain rules--  they must take place in Scotland, filmed within 6 weeks, have a budget of less than 1 million pounds and use the same characters.  This sounds pretty cool but I do have one concern...are 2 more movies going to be just as good as this one using the same characters.  They have big shoes to fill.


Like:  The concept is very interesting.  What would it be like to be able to see every single street...every single person walking in the US.  First of all, it would be creepy.  Second of all, it might be a whole lot safer.  Or more unsafe?  It all depends on the person in charge of keeping the people safe I suppose.

Like:  The shots of Glasgow were really cool.  But at the same time we only saw a couple of different places...mostly Red Road.

Dislike:  I thought I was pretty good at understanding people's accent but this movie was unbearable at times.  Some of the characters I could barely understand.  The main character, Jackie, was very easy to understand though.

Caution:  The sex scenes in this film were very very explicit...maybe even a little bit gross...but they were not in there just to have sex. It did add to the film.

Overall Recommendation:  Check it out...its one of those films that may seem a little slow moving but I assure you..everything is important.

The one thing to take away from this film:  Jackie was just trying to get along with her life...but in order to do so she had to confront her past.  When she had her head near the open window in the apartment it was as if she was breathing...really living...for the first time in a long time.

Torremolinos 73 - 2003

Movie #167

3 stars

Alfredo López (Cámara) is a struggling encyclapedia salesman who owes three months of back rent. It's 1973 and the world is changing. His boss has an offer for Alredo that he just can't refuse, shooting "scientific" sex videos with his wife for the Danish World Encyclopedia of Reproduction. Alfredo's obbsession with filmmaker Ingmar Bergman threatens the relationship with his wife, who becomes obsessed with having a baby.

(I've started making my own plot summaries...what do you think?)

Cast: Javier Cámara, Candela Peña, Juan Diego, Malena Alterio, Fernando Tejero, Mads Mikkelsen, Ramon Barea, Thomas Bo Larsen, Nuria Gonzalez, Marivi Bilbao

Director: Pablo Berger


The storyline was kind of interesting and there were enough things going on to keep my attention.  It was only 86 minutes though.  It is good that the filmmaker realized that a shorter length would be more beneficial.  I feel like a lot of times filmmakers want a 2 hour film...to showcase their talent...but if the storyline isn't there then it just isn't there.

Like:  Berger did a good job of actually making the audience believe that the couple actually had chemistry.  You have to admit, he's the lucky one.  If this hadn't been accomplished then it would feel more like a cheap movie...and not a film observing people's lives.  It might have also made the audience feel grossed out while they were filming their "scientific" movies.

Like: I can definately see the influence of Pedro Almodóvar in this film


Like/Dislike:  This is the kind of film that you can't tell if it is a good or bad thing that it is a foreign language film.  Are you missing out on something by having to read the subtitles?  Or are the subtitles covering up the bad?  I don't really have an opinion on the matter but I thought I would just throw it out there.

Dislike:  Mads Mikkelson.  Anybody who reads my reviews knows that I love Mads.  But I sure am glad this was not the first film I watched of his.  It wasn't that his acting was bad but it was more of just his character.  He was weird, slime-bally, and had no depth.  But in the end this might have been on purpose.  I didn't dislike the character but I didn't like him either.  It would take a lot more effort to like Mads if this was my first movie of his. 

Overall Recommendation:  It's a sub-par movie that isn't really worth watching.

Wake Up Sid - 2009

Movie #162 

3.5 Stars

After he graduates from college, spoiled trust fund brat Sid (Ranbir Kapoor) finds himself stuck in a rut of meaningless late-night parties and lazy irresponsibility -- until he meets Aisha (Konkona Sen Sharma), a significantly older woman and writer. As their unlikely relationship evolves, Sid discovers how to step into the world as his own person.

Cast: Ranbir Kapoor, Anupam Kher, Rahul Khanna, Konkona Sen Sharma, Kainaz Motivala

Director: Ayaan Mukherji

Filming Location: Mumbai, India

My question to you:  When is it time to grow up?  When it time to act like a child again?

Looking back on this film, there wasn't a lot going on.  Sid is a spoiled kid that decides to cut himself off, kind of.  Aisha has just moved to the city in order to gain independence.  It's the story of an unlikely friendship (how many times have you seen that in a plot summary). This film shows you that sometimes you just have to trust your instinct.

But there are some good characters and a few laughs.  I somewhat felt connected to the characters.  The little boy was my favorite.  The man thing that i liked was that film was not all about Sid or all about Aisha.  I got to know them both.

Oh, and there aren't any cheesy dances...maybe a few songs...but no dancing.

Overall Recommendation: If you have never seen a Hindi film then this is a good one to start with.

Gross: $4.3 million (83% non-US)

Trivia: The film got delayed three months during post production when Ranbir Kapoor grew a beard for a role in Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year and could not re-shoot some scenes.

Flame and Citron - 2008

Movie #159

4 stars

Based on actual events, this exciting drama tells the story of World War II Danish Resistance fighters Flame (Thure Lindhardt) and Citron (Mads Mikkelsen). Taking orders from Resistance leader Aksel Winther (Peter Mygind), the two systematically assassinate Danish collaborators and Nazi officers. But they are far from heroic in their personal lives, and filmmaker Ole Christian Madsen explores the serious flaws of these complex men.

Cast: Thure Lindhardt, Mads Mikkelsen, Stine Stengade, Christian Berkel, Hanns Zischler, Peter Mygind, Rasmus Bjerg, David Bjergsø, Rasmus Botoft, Jesper Christensen

Director: Ole Christian Madsen [Prague]

Filming Locations:  Berlin, Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; Prague, Czech Republic

My question to you:  Is there a cause that you would kill for?  How do you decide who must be go?

The film opens with black and white footage of the Germans taking over Copenhagen.  An unnammed narrator asks the viewer, "Do you remember April 9, 1940?"  This made me realize that he has such strong feelings towards this day.  The narrator turn out the be Flame.  With such a calm voice he makes the perfect narrator- a voice that is almost forgettable...a voice that is not intruding.

The viewer is first introduced to the Flame and Citron duo when Flam walks out to the car where Citron is asleep in the backseat.  Citron then starts driving, sweat glistening his face.  This is a remarkable scene.  Flame appears to be confident whereas Citron is nervous.  This instills in the viewer that Flame is more like the #1 man...he is the narrator and all.

Like:  The script allows for the main characters to have a line that is noteworthy:

Flame:  I forgot we're not killing people, but nazis.
Flame: The only thing that you can do is eliminate them.  One by one.  Down to the last one.
Ketty:  It was fun in the beginning.  But it's different now.  Everything is grey.  I think I just want to survive.

Dislike:  The viwer was not able to get to know Citron until Flame was shot.  The narration seems to dissapear for a while and Citron's story slowly emerges.  Citron's relationship with his wife has deteriorated.  She says to him, "You're just not that kind of man," explaining that they won't be a functional family.  She says this to him the day he doesn't have the nerve to shoot and kill a woman, only graze her.  From here on, Citron feels the need to prove himself.  He is the perfect person to take over for Flame while he is out of commission.  The look into Citron's life, even though exciting, was rather short.

Dislike:  The relationship between Flame and Citron was never really fully developed.  Even though the title suggests that they are inseperable, I felt as though I miss out on the foundation of their relationship.  The last shot of the film could have been much more effective if their lives together had been explored more.

Overall Recommendation:  The film is a somewhat perfect blend of action, a little comedy, heart, and enough twists and turns to keep you enthusiasitcally watching.

Budget: $7.4 million
Gross: $10.2 million (98.5% non-US)

Prague - 2006

Movie #152

4 stars

When unhappily married Christoffer and Maja travel to Prague to retrieve the remains of Christoffer's recently deceased father, their misadventures expose both a cultural gap and the cracks in their own relationship in this Danish drama. From doctors who sprint through the morgue to hotel workers who misunderstand simple requests, the bickering couple finds that every interaction in this foreign land leads to confusion and conflict.

Cast: Mads Mikkelsen, Stine Stengade, Borivoj Navrátil, Jana Plodková, Josef Vajnar

Director: Ole Christian Madsen

Filming Location: Prague, Czech Republic  (duh)

So many things about this film are excellent.  But at the same time, there are a few little things that are not so good that seem to overshadow the good parts.

Like:  The way the film really lets the viewer experience a piece of Prague.  The combination of wide angle shots and different shooting locations is fabulous.  It made me almost feel as though I have actually been to be Prague and would recognize it again.  Compared to Good Evening Mr. Wallenberg, this film does a much better job of taking advantage of the location.

Like: I am normally not a fan of films shot with a hand held camera but this film is the exception.  The main reason I usually don't like it is because it makes me dizzy.  I guess it worked for PRAGUE because there were a lot of close up shot...sometimes there were long stretches where all you see are the actors' faces.  It just worked...which is also related to my next....

Like:  The acting was wonderful!  Mads Mikkelsen has impressed me yet again.  The whole cast did an excellent job though.  When there are a lot of close ups of faces, then it is really easy to pinpoint bad performances.  But its also easy to spot great performances.  If I'm not mistaken, I think Mads was in every scene....such an awesome performance.

Like:  The script itself contributed to much of the success of this film.  It gave the viewer an in depth look at a failing marriage without going overboard or being cheesy.  There was also enough comic relief for the plot to not be too depressing.

But now for my major dislike:  The Music and even just the audio in general was very distracting.  There was just too much music for my taste.  I guess I understand the role of the music (of course its trying to affect the viewer emotionally) but it seemed as though music played every time Mads' character didn't want to hear what people were telling him...which isn't necessarily a bad thing but in my opinion this could be have been much better achieved with muting the voices a little bit.

The other problem was that I was constantly having to adjust the volume...which doesn't allow for the best viewing experience.  It would go from loud music to the characters speaking English very very softly.  This wasn't a problem when they were speaking another language because there were of course subtitles.  The editing could have just been much much better.

Overall Recommendation:  It's a good little film...only about 90 minutes.  Check it out!

Some of my favorite quotes:

"Life is hard.  You can't have everything."  (spoken by 2 different characters)

"Life is hard.  You either bend or you break."

"We are always ashamed and never good enough for the world."  (which was spoken in Czech by the housekeeper to Mads who didn't understand what she was saying.  This was by far the best scene of the movie.  The two were pouring each others heart out...yet the other one didn't have a clue what the other one was saying)

Good Evening Mr. Wallenberg - 1990

Movie #150

4.5 stars

The story of Swedish businessman Raoul Wallenberg, who, in 1944, helped Jews in Budapest obtain Swedish passports to get them out of Adolph Eichmann's deadly path. Wallenberg's efforts helped save more than 60,000 people in Budapest's Jewish ghetto -- the most successful rescue of Jews during World War II. Aside from Winston Churchill, Wallenberg was the only other person ever to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.

Cast: Stellan Skarsgård, Károly Eperjes, Miklos Szekely B., Erland Josephson, Jesper Christensen, Ivan Desny, Katharina Thalbach, Franciszek Pieczka, Geza Balkay

Director: Kjell Grede

The main selling point of this film was that it didn't try and go overboard.  When you are dealing with such a tragic issue it is easy to try and outdo everything else that has been made.  Kinda like Boy in the Stripped Pajamas...it was trying to send a message.  With Good Evening Mr. Wallenberg, it is apparent that they did not try to top every other film that tackled the subject.  The film simply told a story...and the story in itself was moving.  Yes, the film was pretty violent at times but not in order to entertain or keep the story interesting...it was violent because it was portraying real events.  And it's sad to say...but you don't need to add a Hollywood plot to make this a good film.

In addition, I think another reason this film was so good was because it is foreign.  Tom Cruise was not hired to entertain us for 2 hours....Stellan Skarsgard prepared himself for the role in order to let more of the world know more about who Wallenberg was.

Skarsgard has said..."There is no overacting, only untrue acting."  He did a fabulous job.  In no way did he overact.  When I was watching the film I was unsure about his acting.  When people would be murdered it was as if Skarsgard was underacting...his character did not seem sad.  But looking back on his performance, it was perfect.  Every single day Wallenberg witnessed people being murdered.  If his reaction every single time was that of sadness then he could not be the most effective he could be.  In order to save people he needed to think of a way to make the Germans stop.

The acting as a whole in the film was superb.  The shots of Budapest added to the affect of the story....even if it was portrayed a little bit more gray then it really is.  The reason I am not giving this 5 stars is because it did drag a little bit...but that is also what added to its greatness...it was a non-Hollywood film.

Overall Recommendation:  If you're not in the mood for something lighthearted...then watch this film!

Interesting Fact about Wallenberg:
Wallenberg rented 32 buildings in Budapest and declared them to be extraterritorial, protected by diplomatic immunity. He put up signs such as "The Swedish Library" and "The Swedish Research Institute" on their doors and hung oversize Swedish flags on the front of the buildings to bolster the deception. The buildings eventually housed almost 10,000 people

And yes...Stellan Skarsgard is Alexander Skarsgard's father.  I guess you can kinda see it..